KS_FLAP_CR1200(1)_Pleasanton_Geotech_Report_FINAL.pdf

Geotechnical Report Pleasanton East Lake Spillway Bridge

Linn County, Kansas

June 18, 2015

Submitted To:

Mr. Corey Lang

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

717 17th Street, Suite 2600

Denver, Colorado 80202

By:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

1321 Bannock St., Suite 200 Denver, CO 80204

23-1-01372-501

ALASKA

CALIFORNIA

COLORADO

FLORIDA

MISSOURI

OREGON

WASHINGTON

WISCONSIN

1321 BANNOCK STREET, SUITE 200

DENVER, COLORADO 80204

PHONE 303•825•3800

FAX 303•825•3801

www.shannonwilson.com 23-1-01372-501

June 18, 2015

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

717 17th Street, Suite 2600 Denver, Colorado 80202

Attn: Mr. Corey Lang

RE: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, PLEASANTON EAST LAKE SPILLWAY

BRIDGE, LINN COUNTY, KANSAS

We are pleased to submit our geotechnical report for the above-referenced project. The enclosed report summarizes subsurface conditions encountered in a subsurface exploration program, laboratory tests, and geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions or require further information, please contact me at (303) 825-3800.

Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Mark J. Vessely Vice President

TJP:MJV/

Enc: Geotechnical Report

23-1-01372-501-L1.docx/

23-1-01372-501-R1.docx 23-1-01372-501 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Bridge Foundation

5.2 Retaining Walls

5.3 Seismic Hazards and Ground Motion Design Parameters

5.4 Corrosive Soil

6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Site Preparation

6.2 Earthwork

6.2.1 General

6.2.2 Subgrade Preparation

6.2.3 Structural Fill

6.2.4 Fill Placement and Compaction

6.2.5 Excavation Potential

7.0 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION

8.0 CLOSURE

9.0 REFERENCES

TABLES

1 Recommended Soil Parameters For Retaining Wall Design……………………...4 2 Seismic Design Ground Motion Parameters………………………………………5

FIGURES

1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

ii

APPENDICES

A Subsurface Explorations and Laboratory Test Results B Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

PLEASANTON EAST LAKE SPILLWAY BRIDGE

LINN COUNTY, KANSAS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of subsurface explorations and laboratory testing, and includes our geotechnical engineering recommendations for the planned City Lake Road overpass of the Pleasanton City Lake spillway in Linn County, Kansas (refer to Figure 1). Our work was completed in general accordance with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) task order number 05 of MSA-12S-15391-CO05 signed July 15, 2014.

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

City Lake Road is currently a two lane eastbound/westbound gravel surfaced road located north of Pleasanton City Lake. The existing spillway is located west of the reservoir dam and discharges to the north, into a tributary to the Muddy Creek. The spillway crossing is approximately 150 feet long and gently slopes down in the center. The City Lake Road traffic currently travels over the spillway and the concrete surfacing has deteriorated. We understand that the project involves raising the grade of City Lake Road approximately 7 feet and constructing a pre-fabricated, 50-foot-long, single span bridge centered over the spillway. We understand the proposed bridge will be a geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) integrated bridge system (IBS) configuration to be designed by Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD). An alternative bridge structure consisting of parallel 5-foot tall concrete box culverts also is being considered. The preliminary approach plans consist of retaining walls on the upstream side of the crossing (south side) and fill slopes for the downstream side.

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING

Shannon & Wilson completed three exploratory borings, designated SW-01 through SW-03, to evaluate subsurface conditions at the proposed bridge site. The locations of the borings were estimated based on measured distances from site features and approximate locations are shown on Figure 2. Appendix A presents a discussion of the drilling and sampling procedures used in completing the borings. Appendix A also presents the individual boring logs, boring location photographs, and an explanation of the symbols and terminology used.

Shannon & Wilson completed geotechnical laboratory testing to determine index properties of selected samples from the borings. The laboratory program included tests for natural water content, Atterberg limits, material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, and corrosion testing.

Laboratory test methods and results are also provided in Appendix A.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Relatively shallow bedrock was encountered at our boring locations drilled at the eastern and western extent of the existing spillway crossing. Geologic mapping of the area indicates that the proposed bridge site is at the approximate contact of the Seminole Formation and underlying Marmation Group (Seevers, 1969). The bedrock consists of sandstone in the Seminole Formation to limestone and shale members of the underlying Marmation Group. Specifically, the bedrock encountered in borings SW-01 and SW-03 consisted of a very low to medium high strength, interbedded sandstone and shale. Auger drilling refusal occurred at depths of 4 and 5 feet from the ground surface, respectively, in borings SW-03 and SW-01 suggesting higher strength rock seams may be encountered. Due to the relatively shallow auger refusal and poor sample recovery, weathering grade of the rock was difficult to determine, but of the bedrock samples recovered, the rock was slightly to highly weathered.

A sandstone rock outcrop was observed near the location of boring SW-02. Repeated blows from a rock hammer were required to fracture the exposed sandstone. In our opinion, the exposed sandstone outcrop is characteristic of medium high rock strength (refer to Photograph 4 located in Figure A-6 in Appendix A).

Boring SW-02, encountered approximately 10 feet of fill consisting of interbedded loose to medium dense, clayey sand and stiff to very stiff, lean clay with sand. The age and placement details of the fill are not known, but it is assumed to be associated with reservoir construction in 1967. Underlying the fill, a 3-foot thick layer of medium stiff to stiff, lean clay with sand was encountered overlying shale bedrock. The boring penetrated approximately 18 feet into the shale prior to drilling termination. The shale was classified as very low to low strength, and slightly to moderately weathered.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Bridge Foundation

Based on our borings, the subgrade beneath the proposed bridge abutments is anticipated to consist of relatively shallow fill overlying sandstone/shale bedrock. The limits of the existing fill under the spillway are unknown; however, the depth to bedrock appears to increase to the east of the spillway. Additional details are presented below.

For the GRS-IBS structure foundation, bedrock is anticipated to be encountered within 1 to 2 feet of the existing spillway crossing elevation and the structure can be placed on the excavated bedrock surface. Prior to placing reinforced backfill for the GRS structure, the base of the foundation excavation should be leveled with compacted fill as discussed in Section 6.2.3. For the GRS design, we recommend a nominal coefficient of friction for sliding of 0.4, for the interface between the reinforced soil foundation and the bedrock with a structural fill leveling course. The recommended nominal bearing resistance for the GRS foundation is 6,000 pounds per square foot (psf).

An approximate 7 foot grade raise of City Lake Road will be required for the approach to the bridge structure. Where the approach is constructed over shallow bedrock (less than 1 to 2 feet deep) the estimated settlement will be controlled by the fill material type and compaction effort.

Assuming properly compacted structural fill over shallow bedrock, the abutment settlement should be designed to tolerate a total settlement of approximately 1 inch with differential settlement on the order of 1/2 inch per 50 feet. East of the GRS structure, undocumented fill was observed in boring SW-02. While the fill placement may have occurred at the time of reservoir construction and been completed under controlled conditions, there is a potential that it was not controlled and for undesirable settlement to occur due to poor quality materials incorporated into the fill or low compaction effort. This potential will increase with the addition of new surcharge from the approach fill. If the risk of potential undesirable settlement is not acceptable, all or part of the fill material can be over-excavated and re-compacted.

For the concrete box culvert option, we recommend foundations be placed on excavated bedrock with a nominal gross bearing resistance of 6,000 psf. In accordance with AASHTO (2012) recommendations, a resistance factor of 0.65 is appropriate. The nominal coefficient of friction presented above for the GRS-IBS structure also can be used for the interface between the box culvert foundation and the foundation bedrock.

5.2 Retaining Walls

Based on the preliminary plans, relatively short (on the order of 7 feet tall, or less) retaining walls will be constructed for portions of the bridge approach and grade raise. The feasible wall types for the approach structures include continuation of the GRS structure, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, or cast-in-place (CIP) concrete walls. The lateral earth pressures on retaining walls depend on many factors, including surcharge loads, the soil type, drainage details, and whether or not the top of the wall can yield or deflect laterally.

If the top of a wall is free to yield a minimum of 0.1 percent the wall height (i.e. 0.001H), the earth pressures will generally be less, i.e. active condition, than if the wall is not able to yield this amount due to stiffness or resistance of the wall, i.e. at-rest condition. We recommend that fill material used to backfill the retaining walls consist of structural fill, as defined in Section

6.2.3. Based on the use of structural fill as backfill, the parameters in Table 1 are recommended for the design of the approach walls.

TABLE 1

RECOMMENDED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR RETAINING WALL DESIGN

Design Parameter Recommended Value Total Unit Weight of Backfill (pcf) 125 Friction Angle (degrees) 34 Cohesion 0

Equivalent Fluid Density for Active Retaining Conditions (pcf)a

Horizontal Backfill

Equivalent Fluid Density for At-Rest Retaining Conditions and Horizontal Backfill (pcf)b 55 Coefficient of Sliding Resistance 0.4 Active Earth Pressure Coefficient with Earthquake Effect (Kae) for Horizontal Backfill 0.29 At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient with Earthquake Effect (Koe) for Horizontal Backfill 0.45

Notes: H:V = horizontal:vertical

a) The active retaining conditions should be used where the walls are free to deflect 0.001 times the height of the wall (i.e. wingwalls).

b) The at-rest retaining condition should be used where the wall is not free to deflect (i.e.

the ends of the CIP concrete closed cell bridge).

The parameters provided for the retaining walls assume a free-draining backfill condition. As such, it will be important to control surface water and reduce its potential to infiltrate into the ground around the retaining walls. Surface water behind the wall should not discharge directly into the wall backfill. In addition, water should not discharge or pond around walls. Weep holes should be incorporated into the retaining walls to provide for drainage of backfill should groundwater elevations rise. A geotextile should be placed behind weep holes to reduce the potential for soil loss.

The bearing capacity provided in Section 5.1 can be used for MSE, GRS, or cantilevered wall structures on bedrock. The factored bearing capacity of walls on soil will depend on the length to width ratio and can be provided upon request. As discussed above, undocumented fill may be encountered below wall locations in the vicinity of SW-2 and over-excavation and replacement should be considered based on the tolerance for settlement and risk.

5.3 Seismic Hazards and Ground Motion Design Parameters

Areas of eastern Kansas have low potential for damaging earthquakes. Based on a recent geologic map by the USGS (2014), the closest mapped Quaternary faults in the region are over 250 miles east (the New Madrid seismic zone located near New Madrid, Missouri).

Using the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2012) criteria, and based on subsurface conditions encountered in our borings (assuming that similar conditions are present from the maximum depth of our boring to a depth of 100 feet), Site Class C is recommended for the proposed bridge.

Ground motion parameters were determined for the project site using the USGS U.S. Seismic Design Map Web Application (USGS, 2012) and the 2009 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Criteria (the design parameters have not changed in the current 2012 manual). Table 2 presents recommended seismic design ground motion parameters for the proposed bridge.

TABLE 2

SEISMIC DESIGN GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS

Ground Motion Parameters Value

Peak Ground Acceleration1 (PGAB) 0.033 g Site Class C Short-period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 0.077 g Long-period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.038 g Site Factor, Fpga 1.200 Site Factor, Fa 1.2 Site Factor, Fv 1.7 Peak Design Spectral Acceleration, AS 0.039 g Short-period Design Spectral Acceleration, SDS 0.093 g Long-period Design Spectral Acceleration, SD1 0.065 g T0 0.140 sec.

TS 0.699 sec.

Note:

1. PGAB = peak ground acceleration for a site underlain by Site Class B soil (soft rock).

5.4 Corrosive Soil

Some soils can be corrosive to substructure elements. To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the site, soil and rock samples from boring SW-02 were tested for pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates, and chlorides. The results are presented in Table A-1 in Appendix A.

The resistivity was 5,700 and 1,500 ohm-cm for the soil and shale rock samples, respectively.

Based on the FHWA 2010 Drilled Shaft Manual (Brown and others, 2010), the resistivity of the shale sample suggest an aggressive subsurface environment for metal in contact with these materials. The pH, and chloride and sulfate contents for both samples were below the aggressive threshold based on Brown and others (2010). The concentrations of water soluble sulfates in both samples were measured at 0.01 percent by weight. Based on classifications as defined by ACI- 318-11 (ACI, 2011), these test results suggest a negligible degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to site soils (exposure class S0).

6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The applicability of the design parameters in Section 5.0 is contingent on good construction practice. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those upon which our recommendations are based, and therefore result in poor performance. Our analyses assume that this project will be constructed according to FP-03 U.S. Customary Units (USDOT and FHWA, 2003) standards. The following sections provide additional construction considerations for this project.

6.1 Site Preparation

We recommend that brush and other vegetation be cleared, and roots and stumps be removed from areas to be graded. Any existing surficial topsoil and soil containing organics should be stripped and removed from areas proposed for new fill. The depth of this removal is anticipated to vary, but generally be less than 6 inches. Topsoil and organic-rich soils are not considered suitable for reuse as fill and should be removed from the site or stockpiled for reuse in revegetation.

6.2 Earthwork

6.2.1 General

Earthwork, including placement of fill and subgrade preparation, should conform to the requirements provided in the FP-03 U.S. Customary Units (USDOT and FHWA, 2003) and the recommendations provided in the following sections.

6.2.2 Subgrade Preparation

Proper subgrade preparation is required for adequate performance of the proposed GRS- IBS bridge. The subgrade (including areas requiring over-excavation) should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches (if possible), moisture conditioned, and compacted to a dense and unyielding condition and to the requirements described in Section 6.2.4. Exposed bedrock does not need to be scarified and recompacted.

Unless on rock, the compacted surface should be proof-rolled with a fully-loaded, tandem-axle, 10-yard dump truck or equivalent. If it is not possible to perform a proof-roll, the subgrade should be probed. Areas that are identified as being loose, soft, or yielding during proof-rolling and/or probing should be compacted in place or removed until dense and unyielding subgrade is exposed, then reconditioned or replaced with clean, coarse granular fill material. Care should be taken during proof-rolling and subgrade preparation to avoid disturbing subgrade soils and supporting soils that will remain in place, as they can rut and pump under repeated construction traffic. The final subgrade surface should be sloped to promote positive drainage and kept free of water at all times. Leaving the subgrade elevation high until final grading begins is a means to reduce the potential for disturbance to the final subgrade materials.

6.2.3 Structural Fill

Structural fill should consist of soils that are free of organics, contaminants, debris, and rock fragments larger than 3 inches. The fill should also contain less than 15 percent fines and have a liquid limit less than 30 percent. The material used within the GRS zone should consist of crushed, hard, durable particles or fragments of stone or gravel. Open-graded aggregates are typically used in the abutments due to the relative ease of construction and favorable drainage characteristics. Well-graded aggregates can also be used (Adams and others, 2012). It should be noted that as the amount of fines increases (silt and clay-sized particles passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve), soil becomes more sensitive to small changes in moisture content, and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve.

6.2.4 Fill Placement and Compaction

All fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts and be compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. Structural fill or other granular soils (AASHTO classification A-1, A-3, A- 2-4, and A-2-5 soils) should be moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T180. Cohesive soils (AASHTO classification A-2-6, A-2-7, A-4, A-6, and A-7-6 soils) should be moisture treated between optimum and 2 percent over optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by AASHTO T99.

The thickness of loose lifts should not exceed 8 inches for heavy equipment compactors and 4 inches for hand-operated compactors, but may be less depending on the Contractor’s equipment and that required to obtain the above relative compaction.

6.2.5 Excavation Potential

The existing topography of the site is relatively flat. Boring SW-01 and SW-03 encountered relatively shallow bedrock, and the drilling effort was unable to penetrate into the existing sandstone/shale bedrock more than 4 feet near the proposed abutment locations. If relatively deep excavation is required into the sandstone bedrock for the construction of the proposed GSR-IBS bridge, conventional excavating equipment, such as dozers, front-end loaders or scrapers, may not be adequate or require the use of hydraulic excavators and dozers with ripper attachments or blasting may be necessary.

The soil materials can likely be excavated using conventional excavating equipment, such as a rubber-tired backhoe or tracked hydraulic excavator.

7.0 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION

Geotechnical design recommendations are developed from a limited number of explorations and tests. Therefore, recommendations may need to be adjusted in the field. To this end, we recommend that a construction observation and monitoring program be implemented for the project and that Shannon & Wilson be retained to monitor the geotechnical aspects of construction.

This monitoring would allow us to confirm that conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations and used in our analyses. At the same time, it would also allow us to provide expedient recommendations should conditions be revealed during construction that are different from those anticipated.

8.0 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of AECOM and CFLHD for the purpose of providing geotechnical recommendations for the referenced project. It should be made available to prospective contractors for the purpose of providing information on factual data only, and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted from the logs and discussions of subsurface conditions in this report.

9.0 REFERENCES

Adams, M., Nicks, J., Stabile, T., Wu, J. , Schlatter, W., Hartmann, J., 2012, U.S. DOT and FHWA, Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System Interim Implementation Guide.

Publication No. FHWA-HRT-11-026.

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2011, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Farmington Hills, Michigan, ACI 318-11.

ASTM International (ASTM), 2012, Annual book of standards, construction, v. 4.08, soil and rock (I): D 420 – D 5876: West Conshohocken, Penn., ASTM International, 1 v.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2012, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 6th Edition: Washington, D.C., AASHTO.

Brown, D.A, Turner, J.P, Castelli, R.J., 2010, Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods: NHI Course No. 132014, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 10.

Washington, D.C., Report No. FHWA-NHI-10-016.

U.S. DOT and FHWA, 2003, Federal Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-03 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, available from http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States, accessed August 7, 2014, from USGS web site:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2012, U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application: available:

http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.

Seevers, W.J., 1969, Geologic map of Linn County, Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey, Bulletin 193, scale 1:63,360.

http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/ http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/ http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php

VICINITY MAP

FIG. 1

PROJECT

LOCATION

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by

Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™ Mapping Service.

NOTE

F i l e n a m e

I W

I P s

C

F L H

D

A

E C

O M

K a n s a s

K a n s a s

P

D P s R e p o r t F i g u r e s F i g V i c i n i t y d w g

D a t e

L o g i n d a a

MT

0 2000 4000

Approximate Scale in Feet

Kansas

Topeka

Project

Location

Pleasanton East Lake Spillway Bridge

Linn County, Kansas

23-1-01372-501August 2014

E. 1100th Rd.

City Lake Road

U n d e r h i l l

R d

E. 1250th Rd.

E. 1000th Rd.

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

FIG. 2

Pleasanton East Lake Spillway Bridge

Linn County, Kansas

50 100

Scale in Feet

Filename: I:\WIP\23-1-01300s\23-1-01372 (CFLHD - AECOM)\500 - Kansas\501 - Kansas PDPs\Report\Figures\23-1-01372-502-Fig2-Site&ExplorPlan.dwg Date: 08-13-2014 Login: los

23-1-01372-501August 2014

F I G

This figure is adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google

Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth™

Mapping Service.

NOTE

Boring Designation and

Approximate Location

LEGEND

SW-01

C

T M

Approximate Location of Rock Outcrop

To Pleasanton

City Lake

City Lake Road

Depth to Rock

Preliminary

Bridge location

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

23-1-01372-501-R1-AA.docx 23-1-01372-501 A-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... A-1

A.2 EXPLORATIONS .......................................................................................................... A-1 A.2.1 Soil and Rock Classification System ................................................................ A-1 A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ...................................................................... A-2 A.2.3 Modified California (MC) Test ........................................................................ A-2

A.3 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTS................................................................. A-2 A.3.1 Water Content ................................................................................................... A-3 A.3.2 Passing No. 200 Sieve ...................................................................................... A-3 A.3.3 Atterberg Limits ............................................................................................... A-3 A.3.4 Corrosion Testing ............................................................................................. A-3

TABLE

A-1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results by Boring

FIGURES

A-1 Soil Description and Log Key (3 sheets) A-2 Rock Classification and Log Key (2 sheets) A-3 Log of Boring SW-01 A-4 Log of Boring SW-02 A-5 Log of Boring SW-03 A-6 Exploration Photographs (2 sheets) A-7 Plasticity Chart

A-1

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilson’s field exploration program was implemented on July 21, 2014 and consisted of drilling three geotechnical borings located near the Pleasanton East Lake Spillway. The borings were designated SW-01 through SW-03, and the approximate location of each boring is shown on Figure 2. Soil samples retrieved from the borings were transported to our laboratory in Denver, Colorado for additional testing. The methods used to conduct the geotechnical field exploration and laboratory testing programs are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination, utility locates, and traffic control) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figures A- 3 through A-5. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing. All borings were drilled by O’Malley Drilling, Inc.

of Omaha, Nebraska (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a truck-mounted CME 55 drill rig.

The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 4.0 to 28.9 feet. Borings SW-01 and SW-02 were advanced through the gravel surface of the road at each end of the spillway. Boring SW-03 was advanced immediately off the northern edge of the concrete-surfaced roadway near the middle of the spillway.

The borings were advanced using 4-inch outside-diameter solid stem auger drilling techniques.

When groundwater was encountered, our field representative measured the approximate depth to groundwater during and after drilling using a measuring tape. The borings were backfilled with drill cuttings.

A.2.1 Soil and Rock Classification System

During drilling, the Shannon & Wilson representative collected soil/rock samples and prepared a field log of the boring. Soil classifications were based on ASTM D 2487, Standard Test Method for Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes, and ASTM D 2488, Standard Recommended Practice for Description of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The system is called the Unified Soil Classification System and is summarized in Figure A-1. Our

A-2 representative classified rock samples in general accordance with the International Society of Rock Mechanics classification method. According to this system, rocks are classified based on the stratigraphic structure, rock strength, degree of weathering, and other properties. The rock classification system is summarized in Figure A-2.

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D 1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter (O.D.), 1.375-inch inside diameter (I.D.) split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. An automatic hammer system was used to advance the samplers. During sampling, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the number of blows for each 6-inch increment of penetration and summed the blow counts for the last two 6-inch increments. This sum is recorded as the penetration resistance number, or N-value. If high penetration resistance prevented driving the total length of the sampler, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the partial penetration depth and blow count. The N-values provide a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless (granular) soils and consistency or stiffness of cohesive (fine-grained) soils (see Figure A-1). The N-values are shown in the individual boring logs. Representative portions of the split-spoon sample obtained in conjunction with the SPT were placed in a screw-top plastic jar and transported to our laboratory.

A.2.3 Modified California (MC) Test

Samples also were obtained using a modified California (MC) barrel sampler. The MC test procedure is similar to the SPT, except a larger diameter barrel sampler is used (2½-inch O.D.) lined with 2-inch-diameter, thin walled brass tubing; the sampler is only driven 12 inches;

the sampler is seated with one to three blows prior to testing; and both 6-inch increments of penetration are recorded as the blow count. As a result of the larger diameter, the MC sampler yields slightly higher raw blow counts when compared to SPT N-values for similar soils. To describe the relative density and consistency/stiffness of the subsurface materials we used the field MC blow counts following SPT blow count terminology. In our opinion, the blow counts are similar between the two samplers and do not significantly impact our evaluation. The soil samples contained within the brass liners were sealed with plastic caps and transported to our laboratory.

A.3 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTS

Laboratory tests were completed on soil and rock samples in general accordance with ASTM International methods (ASTM International, 2012) and AASHTO testing methods. The testing

A-3 program included natural water content, percent passing the number 200 sieve, Atterberg limits, and corrosion property testing. The following sections describe individual test procedure.

A.3.1 Water Content

Water content was determined for selected samples in general accordance with AASHTO T 265, Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soils. To perform this test, a sample was weighed before and after oven-drying, and the water content was calculated. Water content determinations are shown graphically on the boring logs and are also summarized in Table A-1.

A.3.2 Passing No. 200 Sieve

Fines content analysis testing (silt and clay-sized particles passing the No. 200 sieve) was completed in accordance with AASHTO T 11, Materials Finer Than No. 200 (75 µm) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing. The percent fines are shown graphically on boring logs in Appendix A and are also summarized in Table A-1.

A.3.3 Atterberg Limits

Soil plasticity was determined by performing Atterberg limits tests on selected fine-grained samples. The tests were performed in general accordance with AASHTO T 89, Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils, and AASHTO T 90, Determining the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils. The Atterberg limits results include liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and plasticity index (PI equals LL minus PL). The results of the Atterberg limits tests are plotted on plasticity charts on Figure A-7, shown graphically on the boring logs in Appendix A, and summarized in Table A-1.

A.3.4 Corrosion Testing

A corrosion suite was completed on select samples. The samples were tested for pH, sulfate and chloride content, and resistivity. Testing for pH and sulfate content was done in general accordance with ASTM G 51, Standard Test Method for Measuring pH of Soil for Use in Corrosion Testing and ASTM D 1580, Standard Test Method for Water-Soluble Sulfate in Soil. Chloride testing was done in accordance with AASHTO T 291, Standard Method of Test for Determining Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content in Soil. Resistivity measurements were obtained by performing test method ASTM G 57, Standard Method for Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four-Electrode Method. Test results are provided in Table A-1.

TABLE A-1

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS BY BORING

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

L iq ui d

L im it

Pl as tic L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

R es is tiv ity

Su lfa te s

C hl or id es

Top Bottom (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (ohm-cm) (%) (%) S-0 0.0 1.0 9.2 S-1 2.5 2.9 8.7 S-2 5.0 5.8 9.6 S-0 0.0 2.5 14.3

S-1 2.5 3.5 SC 14.6 39 28 20 8

S-2 5.0 6.0 13.3 7.4 5,700 0.010 0.007 S-3 7.5 9.0 13.0

S-4 10.0 11.5 CL 19.1 79 38 14 24

S-6 20.0 20.4 CL 13.1 99 34 17 17

S-7 25.0 25.4 10.5 5.9 1,500 0.010 0.003 S-8 28.5 28.9 13.8 S-0 0.0 0.5 4.8 S-1 2.5 2.8 2.9

NOTES:1) Refer to Appendix A, Figure A-1 for definitions.

SW-01

SW-02

SW-03

CORROSION

pHSample Depth (feet)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

N at ur al

W at er C on te nt

U

SC

S Sy m bo l(1

SAMPLE DATA

Boring

Fi ne s

23-1-01372-501 - Lab Data Summary.xlsx Sheet 1 of 1 23-1-01372-501

August 2014 23-1-01372-501

Linn County, Kansas

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. A-1

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

1All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve.

2The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor.

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors.

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

30% or more total coarse-grained and lesser coarse-grained constituent is 15% or more:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

1Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.

2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm

NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer.

10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches

Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments.

Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less; 10 blows for 0 inches.

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

15% or more of a second coarse-grained constituent:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)

#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)

#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)

3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

Sheet 1 of 3

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

CONSTITUENT2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

3-

1-

2-

P

LE

A S

A N

T O

N B

R

ID

G E

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

/2 3/

Linn County, Kansas

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

(more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve)

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Sheet 2 of 3

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

(50% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve)

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Silt

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC

SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

OL

(less than 5% fines)

GW

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

(less than 5% fines)

PT

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;

Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay

NOTES

1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, Sand with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types are a combination of the two graphic symbols (e.g., SP and SM).

2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CL/ML, Lean Clay to Silt; SP-SM/SM, Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between two groups.

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

FIG. A-1

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

3-

1-

2-

P

LE

A S

A N

T O

N B

R

ID

G E

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

/2 3/

NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488)

Linn County, Kansas

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range of grain sizes present, one or more sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Full range and even distribution of grain sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure Will not crumble or break with finger pressure

Weak

Moderate

Strong

VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA

A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

A thread can barely be rolled and a lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

A thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. A lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

It take considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3

Interbedded

Laminated

Fissured

Slickensided

Blocky

Lensed

Homogeneous

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick; singular: bed.

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick; singular:

lamination.

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy;

sometimes striated.

Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps that resist further breakdown.

Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay.

Same color and appearance throughout.

At Time of Drilling Diameter Elevation Feet Iron Oxide Gallons Horizontal Hollow Stem Auger Inside Diameter Inches Pounds Magnesium Oxide Millimeter Manganese Oxide Not Applicable or Not Available Nonplastic Outside Diameter Observation Well Pounds per Cubic Foot Photo-Ionization Detector Pressuremeter Test Parts per Million Pounds per Square Inch Polyvinyl Chloride Rotations per Minute Standard Penetration Test Unified Soil Classification System Unconfined Compressive Strength Vibrating Wire Piezometer Vertical Weight of Hammer Weight of Rods Weight

ATD

Diam.

Elev.

ft.

FeO gal.

Horiz.

HSA

I.D.

in.

lbs.

MgO mm

MnO

NA

NP

O.D.

OW

pcf

PID

PMT

ppm psi

PVC

rpm

SPT

USCS

qu

VWP

Vert.

WOH

WOR

Wt.

STRUCTURE TERMS1

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

1Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Poorly Graded

Well-Graded

Irregular patches of different colors.

Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals.

Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt and/or clay matrix.

Material brought to surface by drilling.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

DESCRIPTION

Nonplastic

Low

Medium

High

ADDITIONAL TERMS

PLASTICITY2

CEMENTATION TERMS1

GRADATION TERMS

APPROX.

PLASITICTY

INDEX

RANGE

< 4

4 to 10

10 to 20

> 20

PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS1

FIG. A-3

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

3-

1-

2-

P

LE

A S

A N

T O

N B

R

ID

G E

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

/2 3/

ROCK CLASSIFICATION

AND LOG KEY

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

TERM

APPROX. UCS

(psi x 1000)

Very Low

Low

Moderate

Medium High

High

Very High

<0.7

0.7 to 4

4 to 7

7 to 15

15 to 36

>36

COEFFICIENT

14 to 20

10 to 14

6 to 10

2 to 6

0 to 2

VERY ROUGH: Near vertical edges evident

ROUGH: Smooth ridges, surface abrasion

SLIGHTLY ROUGH: Asperities on surface can be felt

SMOOTH: Appears and feels smooth

SLICKENSIDED: Visible polishing, striated surface

JOINT ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT (JRC)

STRENGTH

DESCRIPTION

Very Wide

Wide

Moderately Close

Close

Very Close

>10 ft.

3 to 10 ft.

1 to 3 ft.

2 in. to 1 ft.

<2 in.

DISCONTINUITY DATA

SPACING

TERM SPACING

Very Tight

Tight

Partly Open

Open

Moderately Wide

Wide

Very Wide

Extremely Wide

Cavernous

<0.1mm

0.1 to 0.25mm

0.25 to 0.5mm

0.5 to 2.5mm

2.5 to 10mm

10mm to 1cm

1 to 10cm

10 to 100cm

>1m

APERTURE WIDTH

TERM SPACING

TERM

Fresh

Slightly

Moderately

Highly

Completely

No evidence of alteration

Slight discoloration on surface

Discoloring evident;

Alteration penetrating well below rock surface

Entire rock mass discolored

Rock reduced to a soil with relict rock texture

WEATHERING OR ALTERATION

DESCRIPTION

FRACTURE - Collective term for any natural break excluding shears, shear zones, and faults

JOINT (JT) - Planar break with little or no displacement

FOLIATION JOINT (FJ) or BEDDING JOINT (BJ) - Joint along foliation or bedding

INCIPIENT JOINT (IJ) or INCIPIENT FRACTURE (IF) -

Joint or fracture not evident until wetted and dried;

breaks along existing surface

RANDOM FRACTURE (RF) - Natural, very irregular fracture that does not belong to a set

BEDDING PLANE SEPARATION or PARTING - A separation along bedding after extraction from stress relief or slaking

FRACTURE ZONE (FZ) - Planar zone of broken rock without gouge

MECHANICAL BREAK (MB) - Breaks due to drilling or handling; drilling break (DB), hammer break (HB)

SHEAR (SH) - Surface of differential movement evident by presence of slickensides, striations, or polishing

SHEAR ZONE (SZ) - Zone of gouge and rock fragments bounded by planar shear surfaces

FAULT (FT) - Shear zone of significant extent;

differentiation from shear zone may be site-specific

DISCONTINUITY TERMS

F i l e n a m e

I W

I P s

C

F L H

D

A

E C

O M

K a n s a s

K a n s a s

P

D P s R e p o r t A p p e n d i x

A

E x p l o r a t i o n b

R e s u l t s R o c k

L o g

K e y s d t e g i n t j p

Sheet 1 of 2

FIG. A-2

23-1-01372-501August 2014

ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS

BEDROCK TYPE ROCK NAME

Clastic

Sedimentary

Rocks

Breccia

Conglomerate

Sandstone

Siltstone

Claystone / Interbedded claystone and siltstone

Shale

Coal

Limestone

Dolomite

Corral

Gypsum

Halite

Calcite

Tuff

Rhyolite

Dacite

Andesite

Basalt

Granite

Grano-diorite

Diorite

Gabbro

Marble

Quartzite

Slate

Phyllite

Schist

Gneiss

GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

Carbonate

Sedimentary

Rocks

Evaporite

Rocks

Extrusive

Igneous

Rocks

Intrusive

Igneous

Rocks

Metamorphic

Rocks

F i l e n a m e

I W

I P s

C

F L H

D

A

E C

O M

K a n s a s

K a n s a s

P

D P s R e p o r t A p p e n d i x

A

E x p l o r a t i o n b

R e s u l t s R o c k

L o g

K e y s d t e g i n t j p

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Sheet 2 of 2

FIG. A-2

ROCK CLASSIFICATION

AND LOG KEY

23-1-01372-501August 2014

Clayey Sand (SC); moist; trace of gravel, few silt.

Interbedded SHALE and SANDSTONE: Very low to low strength, red-yellow to yellow, fine grained; thinly bedded; highly weathered;

argillaceous, high plasticity.

SHALE: Very low to low strength, yellow;

moderately to highly weathered; high plasticity.

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 7/21/2014.

- Drill auger refusal at a depth of 5 feet.

S-0

S-1

S-2

1.0

5.0

5.8

G ro un dw at er

N ot

E nc ou nt er ed

D ur in g

D ril lin g

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

August 2014 23-1-01372-501

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

20 40

FIG. A-3

S am pl es

4 in.

AWJ

Automatic

20 40 60

S ym bo l

Solid Auger O'Malley Drilling CME 55 Truck Rig

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

LOG OF BORING SW-01

Pleasanton East Lake Spillway Bridge Linn County, Kansas

D ep th , f t.

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Grab Sample

Standard Penetration Test

NOTES

5.75 ft.

1. Refer to Figures A-1 and A-2 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual.

3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

5. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

3-

1-

-5

P

LE

A

S A

N T

O N

B R

ID

G

E .G

P J

S H

A N

_W

IL

.G D

T

/7 /1

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

% Water Content

50/4.5"

79/9" ur in g

D ril lin g

S-0

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

1.0

10.0

13.0

28.9

Clayey Sand (SC); moist; trace of gravel, few silt.

Fill

Interbedded loose to medium dense, red-yellow and yellow, Clayey Sand (SC); and stiff to very stiff, Lean Clay with Sand (CL); moist; few to trace gravel, few organics.

Fill

Medium stiff to stiff, yellow-brown, Lean Clay with Sand (CL); moist.

SHALE: very low to low strength, light gray to gray; laminated to thinly bedded, fissile; slightly to moderately weathered; low plasticity.

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 7/21/2014.

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Ground Water Level ATD

August 2014 23-1-01372-501

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

28.9 ft.

20 40

FIG. A-4

S am pl es

4 in.

AWJ

Automatic

20 40 60

Solid Auger O'Malley Drilling CME 55 Truck Rig

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

NOTES

LOG OF BORING SW-02

Pleasanton East Lake Spillway Bridge Linn County, Kansas

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Grab Sample

Modified California Sampler

Standard Penetration Test

S ym bo l

D ep th , f t.

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL…